New Haven Independent

Posted by: Fonseca | April 11, 2008 6:14 PM

I support Lugo and the ULA. They are a voice for people that have traditionally been without a voice in the New Haven area. Like J. Baldwin wrote, "If one wants to know how justice is administered in a country, one does not question the protected members of the middle class. One goes to the unprotected... those, precisely who need the law's protection the most, and listen to their testimony." ULA has listened to those marginalized and unprotected people in our communities.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | April 12, 2008 8:25 AM

The calm, rational and judicious approach -- bolstered by facts and a persuasive tongue unrelated to the John Birchers -- will do more for the cause of legal immigration than screaming and shouting, threatening and video-taping, etc.

Opponents like Lugo need only cry out for help and the sympathy - whether deserved or not - jettisoning our hopes so fast, the head will spin.

New Haveners doesn't need or want the plainly awful John Birch society to chime in with their false patriotism and despicable hate-mongering.

We are essentially a liberal people in this city, but we despise the fact that rights and benefits are given to any people in contravention of the laws of this nation and of their demands that we do so for them preferentially.

Who are these nutcases who think they have the right and the power to hijack the movement against illegal immigration? They have become the worst possible advocates.

Get out!

Posted by: Gary Doyens | April 12, 2008 10:45 AM

For decades, never more than now, government uses national security, city security or other poorly defined and thinly investigated "threats" to thwart the public's right to know. This issue is dividing the city and the country and when the division is this deep, the crazies on both sides come out. That is still no excuse to hide information on a stated city policy, where city resources are being expended, where the program is proposed for a second year.

Public policy should be supported by public information - situation ethics where those in power can decide what the public has a right to see inevitably will lead to the public knowing nothing.

Those who are afraid, may well be afraid because they're breaking known laws. If the crazies on the other side are acting in a threatening manner, there are laws and police to deal with that. Hiding information about the program empowers lawlessness.

Posted by: DAFeder | April 12, 2008 9:00 PM

I haven't seen it mentioned in all the sturm & drang over this issue, but hey -- kudos to Melissa Bailey and the Indy for the term, "immigrant-friendly municipal ID."

David

Posted by: Tell the truth | April 13, 2008 10:17 AM

I look forward to the day when Mr. Doyens condescending and mean spirited comments are based on fact. Firstly, the ID program does not use city funds, so there goes that argument. Secondly, it is my understanding that the city is trying to protect personal information about applicants and nothing more. Finally, making baseless assumptions about the alleged lawlessness of those who fear for their safety and blaming the government for the vigilante behavior of anti immigrant activists is a classic example of misplaced blame. Mr. Doyens - you, sir have no heart.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | April 14, 2008 9:22 AM

Tell: Perhaps you could take another look at your facts - The program does use city resources. It's housed in City Hall, supervised by city employees and is included in next year's budget with no currently confirmed sources of outside funding. Some of those supervisory city employees are spending their time seeking a new round of funding from 12- 15 outside sources who will pay for the actual program in the next fiscal year. The program currently employs 4 - 5 people, which is what the initial grant paid for in addition to some equipment and card stock.

Re: "making baseless assumptions about the alleged lawlessness of those who fear for their safety and blaming the government for the vigilante behavior of anti-immigrant activists is a classic example of misplaced blame," is the kind of hyperbole that accompanies so much of the discussion on this issue. Illegal immigration is in fact a crime and there are laws against it as there are laws against attacking, threatening or stalking anybody in this country, regardless of legal status.

The DeStefano administration has a long and pitiful record of complying with freedom of information requests. My overall position is that very little of what the government does, local, state or federal should be off limits to the public. There should be exceptions - but they should be rare. It is real easy for those in power to claim there's a threat - and use the alleged threat, however weak, to cloak their activities in secrecy. If you want to see where that's taken us on a national level - you need only look at the secret detentions, torture, and the Iraq War, or the expanded view by the Bush White House that a much broader swath of the federal government is now off limits to the citizens who pay for it, including information previously considered public. New Haven may be a smaller scale, but it doesn't make the same policy any more correct.

Posted by: Yes, but... | April 14, 2008 11:35 AM

Gary, I definitely agree that the government should be transparent in what it is doing, and admire that you so closely watch how the city is spending its money. You are civically-involved to a rare degree.

I think where I start disagreeing with you is that you think that this request for information should be granted. The actual request, as I understand it, is for the names, photos, and addresses of those who have applied for the card, and to be honest, I don't understand how that is public information, nor how that information would somehow illuminate the actions of the city government. If someone were to request that the state release the same information about all those who hold driver's licenses, there would be a massive uproar, especially if there were wide knowledge that a newspaper planned to take that information and publish it for all to see (not least from those who hate their license pictures). Why, then, is it necessary to make people's private information public?

In this case, I see only one real reason, as I don't believe anyone will actually learn more about the city government's doings from the release of this information: basically, it is to intimidate those who have gotten the card, and scare off anyone who would.

Posted by: Tell the Truth | April 14, 2008 7:00 PM

Ummm...Wrong again, Mr. Doyens. Illegal immigration is not a crime. It is a civil violation.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | April 14, 2008 10:42 PM

Yes - You may be right about the intentions of those fighting to make it public. I have concerns over that and what specifically they would hope to gain from it. However, I also think that a program specifically designed for a target population, only made broader to give it a petina of a wider benefit should be subject to greater scrutiny. For instance, how many of the 5100+ who have signed up for the card, use it regularly? How many are city employees or policitcal allies? How many of the target population has actually used the card to open bank accounts, mortgages and the like so they are not subject to robberies? These issues can only be vetted by knowing more about the program and its participants. It's only through knowledge that one can test the hypothesis and rationale upon which this highly controversial program was sold.

The city makes plenty of other personal information about individuals public - where they live, how much they pay in taxes, what cars they drive, whether they're delinquent in those taxes, even what purchase price you paid for your house.

Posted by: True New Havener | April 15, 2008 9:27 AM

Mr. Doyens:

While it is common knowledge that you despise the Mayor even more than you hate taxes, I think you have your priorities out of whack on this one.

You acknowledge that "You may be right about the intentions of those fighting to make it public. I have concerns over that and what specifically they would hope to gain from it." And the Independent has made it clear that opponents of the card have threatened to KILL cardholders and city staff. Just maybe you have chosen the wrong place to make your good government stand.

To release the names and addresses (including names and addresses of children) when the city has been forewarned by card opponents in writing (and on the radio) that among other things: (1) residents waiting on line for the card should be gunned down, (2) city staff should be lynched, and (3) immigrants should be hunted down and killed -- would be irresponsible and negligent.

This is precisely why there is a public safety exemption in Connecticut's law and apparently exactly why the Homeland Security Commissioner has exercised it.

We know that domestic terrorism by right wing extremists is alive and well in America (Oklahoma City, Olympic bombing, etc). And we know that numerous people over the last couple of years have walked into public buildings and executed civil servants. To act like this is not the case is shameful.

Good for New Haven for coming up with a way to provide an additional low cost service to our residents while integrating those who are most likely to be exploited. But even if you don't agree with this, you have chosen the wrong moment to join a chorus which currently only has members intent on protecting the "right" for nutjobs to threaten and potentially even kill our neighbors.

If you have concerns about whether the ID card is an effective tool, as you have concerns about the Shubert, the airport, the Dixwell library and just about everything else paid for by the city that does not impact your life directly, then feel free to ask those questions in the normal way. This is not however the time or place. Otherwise you are just legitimating those that even you have questions about.

You don't need to be ignorant of the world around you just because you support FOI. And every question you raised could be asked and answered without releasing the names and address of card recipients.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | April 15, 2008 2:06 PM

True New Havener: There is a difference in my well-known dislike of the mayor's tactics, policies and taxes. You nor anybody else know what I think of him pesonally. There's a difference.

As to your doomsday scenario, if any of that were true or actionable, the law enforcement agencies, who by the way, monitor email and other traffic, including phones, would be moving on it. To date, nobody has been arrested; no threats have been verified beyond a few nutcases who are venting and they have not been considered a real threat.

The city wouldn't have to release the names of children, probably be a good idea not to which has nothing to do with the city ID card - kids should be kept anonymous for other reasons.

Posted by: Tell the Truth | April 15, 2008 7:54 PM

Wrong again, Mr. Doyens! My, you are on quite a roll.

If the city were to lose, it would have to turn over ALL documents pertaining to card holders, including children. This would include photographs, names, addresses and other personal information. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

As for your bizarre comments regarding threats -- if the police department did not consider them to be serious, then the Chief would not have testified at the hearings regarding what he considers to serious threats -- and the FBI would not have been involved. Please feel free to refresh your recollection about this by reading an earlier article that covered this in the Independent.

Posted by: True New Havener | April 17, 2008 10:23 AM

Gary -- you just made a bunch of stuff up out of thin air. I had assumed you were making honest arguments but now I don't think so. Here are things you are wrong about:

1. Children's names and addresses would not be released. They would be.

2. The feds monitor email and other traffic. WHAT?? The feds can't monitor your email. They may do so illegally in a hunt for "terrorists" but they could never use that information in court and there is NO REASON AT ALL to believe they are monitoring anyone's email here.

3. Ditto on phone calls. The feds cannot legally monitor your phone line.

4. The chief said in his testimony that he had turned over death and other threats to the FBI for investigation. How does this equal "they have not been considered a real threat."

5. Since when did death threats become "venting"?

6. The STATE Dept of Homeland Security has intervened in this case because it takes these threats seriously. (Remember that the Commissioner himself ordered New Haven not to release the information.) If the New Haven police and the State of Connecticut take these issues seriously, how can they then not be serious?

Gary -- why did you go from making rational arguments to diving off a cliff of fabrication. Again -- when you do this, you become easy to associate with the racists, nutjobs, potential killers and haters at issue here.

While I don't agree with you on several issues, I have always assumed you were rational and not filled with hate. At a minimum your comments here serve to justify the unjustifiable.